New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a moderate Republican. His focus is mostly on fiscal issues and on social issues he does not seem to be directed by his religious affiliations.

However, like many moderate politicians of both parties, Christie believes that vocal support for civil unions is a safe position that will not draw too much ire from anyone.

To an extent he’s right. Our community is still appreciative of civil union support when it is sincere. But that is rapidly becoming inadequate. And it may soon be a position that a New Jersey politician may find untenable.

Christie has hinted that he would veto any marriage bill that crossed his desk. But that resolve will soon be put to the test. (ABC4)

Democrats in the New Jersey Legislature will reintroduce a gay marriage bill this week and have vowed to make same-sex unions a top priority two years after similar legislation was voted down.

Senate Bill 1 is being played up in a highly visible fashion. And while supporters likely do strongly wish to achieve equality in New Jersey, they even more strongly wish to establish a distinction between Democrats and Republicans.

Just as it was in 2004, gay marriage is again becoming a wedge issue. But this time it is opponents of equality who are embarrassed and defensive and trying to explain why their positions are inconsistent with will of the populace.

We see how anti-gay positions have destroyed a few campaigns already. And it is not Romney’s kinda-sorta gay tolerance that has become an albatross as right-wingers predicted, but Santorum’s views that have dogged his steps and defined his candidacy.

Now we will soon learn in New Jersey whether marriage equality has become so socially accepted that civil unions support is a position that can hurt a politician.

Isn’t New Jersey one of those states with Civil Union laws that basically grant gay couples everything that married couples get (on the state level)? Marriage equality is the logical next step to lobby for.

All signs point to Christie running for President in 2016 if Obama wins or 2020 if Romney wins. No way he would sign this. Santorum is doing well and Romney is having trouble clinching the nomination precisely because Romney isn’t anti-gay enough for the Republican base. A governor who actually signed a gay marriage law would be dead in the water during a GOP primary race.

Christie has three options. He can sign the law (which he certainly will not do). He can veto the law (which he may well do). But he can also simply do nothing, which will allow the law to take effect but without his signature. If he thinks there is a possibility that enough Republicans will break from their caucus and support an override of a veto, he may well decide simply to let the bill become law without his signature. He can say that he thinks it is unnecessary, that gay couples already have all the rights that marriage would provide, but that he does not want to divide the state with a messy battle over gay marriage. He could also say that he wants to avoid the expensive legal battle before the state Supreme Court, which will soon hear arguments on whether the civil unions remedy actually accomplished what the New Jersey Supreme Court said they should: provide equal rights for same-sex couples.

I have had a LOT of conservative friends honestly ask what the difference is, and why do I care about “marriage” versus “civil unions”, etc. As a community we need to do a better job about communicating why Civil Unions are not the same as marriage on a structural level, not just a moral / rights / emotional level.

Conservatives who are open to hearing an answer to this question, and there are many, are pretty immune the standard arguments of equality etc when it hinges on the use of a particular word. They don’t disagree about that per se, but they’re MUCH more swayed by practical considerations – including the notion that separate institutions in separate buckets means that our marriages can be repealed at any time by plebiscite or fiat, or that the IRS doesn’t necessarily treat them the same, or that in many states they don’t do the same thing at all.

When they realize that the two are completely separate – and I swear to you that many ears are open – their response is often “well, that’s just stupid, why can’t they just… ” And then we win.

We’re making our case. We’re winning over our friends and allies. But we need to have a practical bumper-sticker length message out there: Civil Unions are not the same as marriage structurally or legally, and the sooner this gets resolved, the sooner we can get back to guns and football and complaining about big government. OK, that doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker. But I’m open to editorial assistance there.

I think that perhaps the best response is to ask why conservative friends believe that there needs to be distinction AND, if so, why it is that heterosexuals not take civil unions instead.

None will leap at this option. Because they know that civil unions are inferior. Intuitively.

So then just ask them why it is that they insist that someone else accept what they would refuse. That is the heart of the issue.

If you try to discuss structure, then the solution is to revise structure. If you put this in terms of reality – that civil unions exist solely for one purpose: to delegate gay couples to a lesser status – then they must then address that they hold this attitude.

Remember, denying equality is not about gay people. It is about those who don’t want gay people to be equal. You are just signing up for what everyone else gets and have no obligation to explain yourself. They are the ones who need to explain why they are denying to you what they value for themselves.

Now many will be fine with believing that you are inferior to them. Some will happily tell you so.

At which point you can either agree with them that you are inferior or let them know that as your friendship moves forward (or dissolves), you recognize that they hold you in contempt and that this character flaw in them impacts your valuation of them. Remember, this is about them, not you.

What you CANNOT do is pretend that you “agree to disagree” or that their support of discrimination is okay on any level. To do so provides them with all the ammunition that they need to dismiss your concerns. Because if, like Sarah Palin’s hypothetical gay friends, you don’t take your worth seriously, why should they?

Excellent point, Tim K. The onus of proving worthy of marriage is unfairly placed on gay people. I have asked that of those who oppose equality, and after a fashion they simply don’t feel obligated to answer.
This reminds me of the kerfuffle with Ms. Christofsen and El Coyote. She’s had a great deal of gay patrons for decades. Who helped her family maintain their prosperity along with the rest of her customers.
Yet, she decided to vote for Prop. 8 and helped to effectively take away hard won and needed marriage for gay people in this state. You saw how she behaved when she was busted on that. As if she was going to be or was victimized by people she publicly and defended herself by calling her friends.

What she did, if gay people WERE her friends, is essentially say they were only good enough as long as she could profit from them, and they unquestioningly didn’t challenge her betrayal.
If gay people REALLY were her friends, she’d have understood the stakes involved in being able to marry, and gladly would have respected and appreciated equal rights that supported their very lives.
And considering the slanderous and lying responses of her supporters, you would have thought SHE was the one betrayed and not the other way around.

What all of this does, is prove the moral character of a person. It tests their character as true, or phony. Whether they have one face, or two.
Too bad if they don’t like what it makes them look like, and if they can face anyone who cares and how they’ll do so.
It also separates the courageous from the cowardly.
And liars from the truthful.
Why would someone of PROFESSED sterling character be afraid of that test?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.